The global temperature has fallen .653°C (from +0.554 in March 2010 to -0.099 in March 2011) in just one year. That’s a magnitude nearly equivalent to the agreed upon global warming signal agreed upon by the IPCC. It is quite a sharp drop.
According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century
Comments from Dr. Roy Spencer: (plus graph)
(Graph by Anthony Watts, data and commentary from Dr. Spencer/UAH)
UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C
La Nina Coolness Persists
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for March 2011 fell to -0.10 deg. C, with cooling in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheric extratropics, while the tropics stayed about the same as last month. (I’m on the road in Virgina, so the temperature graph will not be updated until I return on Thursday.)
April 5th, 2011
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 02 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 03 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 04 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 05 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 06 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 07 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 08 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 09 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222
2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.099 -0.073 -0.126 -0.345
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To DeanL who said:
“Posts like this will be referred to in the future as people wonder how it was that people historically denied basic, centuries old science being plainly demonstrated in simple plots such as this. Sorry, but i really did laugh out loud as I scanned through the comments of the “sceptics” as they managed to completely ignore the mind numbingly obvious trend in the data – even neglecting the intricacies of the El Nino/La Nina oscillations complicating the story. There’s a very sad lack of honesty at this site and I really am left wondering how people can be so demeaning to their own intellect in this way. Really, worryingly sad. I know you’ll have your clever refutations that will be relentlessly backed up by the entrenched group think but, really?”
You are right about some posters here, but don’t put us all in the same boat. Michael Mann and company made things up, prevented dissenting articles from appearing, were the judge and jury for their own wretched work, so please don’t criticize just this web site’s view of things.
Many of us here do understand that CO2 warms the climate, but the issues are, How much, With what effects, and At what cost to cause any meaningful change.
The UAH data — better in my view than land based data — shows warming trends of about 1.5 degrees per C, less than the low end of the IPCC range. I trust reality at this point more than I trust the IPCC, thanks to what I learned at Climategate. But I don’t deny some warming, and I don’t deny CO2 is partly responsible.
What I want right now is science I can trust. And I don’t want to further hamstring our economy when almost all the CO2 increases will come from elsewhere in the world then next century, and when the warming trend is so low.
BTW, did you notice that CO2 emissions from the US went down about 6.2% in 2009?
@R. Gates says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Caution: most the posts on this blog are from “warmists”
—–
Reply I beg to differ, RG….I happen to see AGW as a non-issue, but believe that ocean acidification is a real problem. This makes me an “ass”. – CRS, Dr.P.H.
Intensive reading over the past ten years has not revealed one scintilla of science-based evidence affirming the AGW hypothesis. What have I missed?
Christopher Hanley: ‘To get a feel for the underlying warming trend why not look at the longest record available viz. HADCRUT3 (which nicely coincides with the rise in CO2 concentration)?’
I have had a look at this one but there is no association. The problem is that you cannot simply compare trends – the HADCRUT data is highly correlated with vicars’ salaries but there is no association. The other problem is that the time series are fundamentally different so we have to go to first differences to see if there is even a statistical never mind a causal relationship. With first differences we are looking to see if we can explain changes in temperature using CO2 as the explanatory variable. Here we discover that there is no relationship whatsoever even when varying the lag between T an CO2. I suspect it is this fundamental lack of association which has driven some climate scientists to create models based upon the physical science – this would I suspect be largely redundant if there was a robust empirical relationship. A strong statistical relationship would also help nail the ‘sensitivity’ issue as we would be able to measure the actual response of T to CO2 by looking at the regression parameters. Other climate scientists have sought to uncover attribution in the data using multivariate fingerprinting methods but unfortunately without real success. All they can say is that the temperature rise is ‘consistent’ with the rise in CO2 but only if there are any forcings they haven’t missed. That is not very convincing.
From eyeballing the graph, this is what I see. From 1979 until just before the start of the 1998 El Nino, temperature trend was essentially flat. In 1998, there was strong El Nino, resulting in rapid warming, followed by a La Nina, resulting in rapid cooling. After recovering from the La Nina, average global temperatures went up a notch (maybe about 1 degree). Since then, the trend looks essentially flat. If CO2 were driving the warming, I would expect to see a steady increasing trend in temperatures over the entire period consistent with the steady increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The empirical data seem especially inconsistent with the notion that there are strong positive feedbacks in the climate system. The termperature trends seem more consistent with the hypothesis that the major driver is the ENSO cycle. I am curious how those who believe in a high climate sensitivity explain the empirical data.
The penultimate sentence should read: ‘All they can say is that the temperature rise is ‘consistent’ with the rise in CO2 but only if they have not missed any forcings out of their analysis.’
Apologies
@Robert of Texas: That’s an interesting observation. You’re right, it looks like a flat trend from 1979 to the 1998 El Nino, and then another flat trend (about a higher mean) to the right of the 1998 El Nino spike. Did something change in the way the data is gathered or processed? Certainly this could be a natural phenomenon, but I’ve always found it interesting how many people never seem to consider the possibility of measurement or data processing errors when examining these trends. Taking good experimental data is actually hard. Has anyone on either side of the climate change debate run a gage R&R study of the measurement systems used? Given the small magnitude of the temperature changes being discussed it seems like it would be a prudent thing to do.
This is ridiculous.
Had the numbers pointed the other way, most of the people commenting here would have noted that the numbers are averages of averages drawn from flawed source measures whose predicted accuracy is much less than that produced by the arithmetic contortions needed to produce the numbers here.
R. Gates says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Werner Brozek says:
April 5, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I will predict that at least for April, the rate of loss of Arctic sea ice will be slower than normal.
Uh, I wouldn’t be so confident in that prediction, as indications are that we could be in for a very interesting ride down to the minimum and challenge 2007 for the lowest modern summer arctic sea ice minimum. I’ve also noticed you gave a link to Steve Goddard’s site. After his PIPS2.0 nonsense here last year, I’m surprised anyone would put a lot of stock in his forecasts. His prediction LAST year- 5.5 million sq. km. minimum, Mine: 4.5 million sq. km. He based his on his beloved PIPS2.0. It’s a MODEL, so tread carefully with this MODEL data…really.
And your beloved PIOMAS that you rely on for Arctic ice prediction is of course, as we all know – directly measured data. (not – its an even more indirect separated-from-reality model than PIPS).
Guess you thought we wouldn’t notice and let that one slip. Anyway – if as you also say we’re all warmists here at WUWT, then we’re all on the same side!
Anyway – we shall see. BTW, if all this hot water is gushing into the Arctic as you suggest, why is the OHC in the Arctic ocean declining?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/tisdale-update-on-ocean-heat-content/
and why are the UNISYS Arctic ocean temperature anomalies about neutral?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Sure you’ll have plenty of words in reply, but do you (ever) have any answers?
Richard S Courtney says:
April 6, 2011 at 2:52 am
Well, yes, of course, if you look at the entire temperature record for the current interglacial, you’ll notice a steady cooling trend that has lasted for thousands of years. But let’s not confuse the debate with facts. Let’s stick to the trends that show undeniably that not only is there a warming trend, but that the only possible explanation is human emissions of CO2. What is with you people on this site with yuor heads in the sand? How can any of you truly believe that observations and reality are more important than hypotheses and computer models. Such archaic mindsets you guys (and gals) have…
It’s true! If you need more proof, they used to be .
Jack Linard:
Go to
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/rura-us-sites-show-no-temperature.html
Jack Linard:
oops. the “rura” in above referenced website should be “rural”
“To get a feel for the underlying warming trend why not look at the longest record available viz. HADCRUT3 ”
The HADCRUT3 that had a .206C January anomaly?
1942 0.215
1944 0.240
1958 0.224
And since UHI is not accounted for, my guess is that 2011 is probably higher than it really is and should be cloer to zero.
I’m not a scientist, nor a statistician, I’m an interested amateur and I’m learning all the time, mostly by reading blogs such as this and asking damn-fool questions. So here’s a damn-fool question to show my ignorance.
When I look at that graph, I see an overall warming trend. Sure, we’ve got a spike in 1998 and another in 2010, which are attributed to El Nino, with corresponding drops in temperature afterwards – but that’s just regression to the mean (if I understand that term correctly). But we’ve also got an apparent average increase along the timescale shown. So what am I missing in this graph that refutes AGW?
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not an AGW true believer, I just don’t see how this graph says anything contrary to AGW doctrine.
Yes there is a slight upward trend, but it looks in the region of ~0.05 C a decade, only about a fraction of the rise that Schmidt is claiming. Add in that there was slight global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s (which explains all those cooling scare stories of the time) and the trend since the war seems to be only negligibly upward. The recovery from the LIA seems to be, prima facie, all but over. But stay tuned!
It time that the term “greenhouse gases” be retired to the world of Mother Goose Rhymes- there is no such thing- yes there are 3 atoms or more gas molecules that absorb IR radiation therefore they should be referred to as IRag. It has been shown by the work of Niels Bohr that when a gas -any gas absorbs radiation whether IR,UV,microwave, radio wave etc it does not cause the gas to “heat”. The absorbed energy goes into intermolecular activity either by jumping an electron to a higher energy level or by vibration in the nuclei.
When this energy is radiated it will be at the same wavelength as was absorbed however the quantity will be at a diminished value.( there are always energy losses even if very small). This energy is as a photons and the photons can interact with other molecules as the earth or water on the earth or as clouds(liquid or solid-ice). If the photons interact with water vapor again this will not “ heat” the water vapor, (remember Niels Bohr) however if the photons interact with water liquid or solid it can cause heating.
Water liquid or solid is not a “greenhouse gas”!!!
Water/l/s/v, CO2, No2, etc are IRag and are essential to life on this planet. They do not cause “Mann-made global warming” they do not cause climate change they may effect some aspect of weather but the real cause of climate change is Solar output. To waste time calculating average temperature and other circumstantial evidence of a Hypotheses that has never been proven by creditable experimental data is not science, to project weather 100 years in the future is the job of the Flat screen fortune tellers another group of Mother Goose rhyme writers. – Climatology is not a science it is a group of historians that study temperature then fantasize about the future.
It time to get back to real science that applies to this subject -”physics” and the list of references below is a good starting point. List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
It time that the term “greenhouse gases” be retired to the world of Mother Goose Rhymes- there is no such thing- yes there are 3 atoms or more gas molecules that absorb IR radiation therefore they should be referred to as IRag. It has been shown by the work of Niels Bohr that when a gas -any gas absorbs radiation whether IR,UV,microwave, radio wave etc it does not cause the gas to “heat”. The absorbed energy goes into intermolecular activity either by jumping an electron to a higher energy level or by vibration in the nuclei.
When this energy is radiated it will be at the same wavelength as was absorbed however the quantity will be at a diminished value.( there are always energy losses even if very small). This energy is as a photons and the photons can interact with other molecules as the earth or water on the earth or as clouds(liquid or solid-ice). If the photons interact with water vapor again this will not “ heat” the water vapor, (remember Niels Bohr) however if the photons interact with water liquid or solid it can cause heating.
Water liquid or solid is not a “greenhouse gas”!!!
Water/l/s/v, CO2, No2, etc are IRag and are essential to life on this planet. They do not cause “Mann-made global warming” they do not cause climate change they may effect some aspect of weather but the real cause of climate change is Solar output. To waste time calculating average temperature and other circumstantial evidence of an Hypotheses that has never been proven by creditable experimental data is not science, to project weather 100 years in the future is the job of the Flat screen fortune tellers another group of Mother Goose rhyme writers. – Climatology is not a science it is a group of historians that study temperature then fantasize about the future.
It time to get back to real science that applies to this subject -”physics” and the list of references below is a good starting point. List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
“Interesting update…even mentioning such short term ENSO ups and downs in the context of longer term global warming seems like talking about apples and oranges. Such declines are to be expected when transitioning from a decent El Nino to La Nina.”
R. Gates,
You cannot have it both ways. Either CO2 is THE primary driver of “climate” and “global temperature”, or it is not. The AGW hypothesis states that as CO2 concentration goes up, the global mean temperature goes up. The fluctuations due to natural variability disprove that hypothesis. The fluctuations you describe as “expected” ARE indeed actually expected, but the reason that they are expected is that CO2 isn’t even vaguely close to being the primary driver of “climate”.
In central MN bitter cold started by Thanksgiving and departed the ides of March. Snow covered the ground until this week.
Roy’s prediction of La Nina’s effect departing a couple of months back when SOI went neutral was decidedly premature.
Jct: And they can’t use their “trick to hide the decline” any more. So they’re left with the retards like David Suzuki and Elizabeth May who remain tricked!
Except that the graph shows at least two other drops that are just as sudden and just as big at the 125 and 150 month marks. This time it hasn’t gotten as cold as those times, so it appears the world is warmer now than it was then.
Did you mean for your graph to show evidence of global warming?
R. Gates says: “ENSO does not create any NET long term heating or cooling (and it better darn well not, or we’re in trouble!)”
It doesn’t? Why would we be in trouble?
(Sorry for the delay in replying.)